Take the Constitutional Quiz Take the Constitutional Quiz

Liar D

Editor’s Note: The Clinton email threat set forth below as belatedly produced by Clinton is less than crisp because that is all that was publicly available, but ti seemed that our readers would want to see the actual email thread nonetheless and not merely be told second hand what it said.

Hillary Clinton and the State Department are under a court order to produce Clinton’s emails from her own email private server in “batches.” The latest batch was to be produced by December 31. Without explanation, the court ordered deadline was missed.

Instead the batch was not furnished until last week—literally in the middle of the night, no less. The better to give investigators a chance to overlook something in the batch? Included in this batch was the following email thread (read from bottom up), ending with Hillary’s instruction “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure”:

Hillary Email Thread

It should come as no surprise that this latest email thread has had all eyes turning. Appearing on Face the Nation this past Sunday, Hillary sought to employ her typical strategy:  Downplay; deflect; deny.

 Clinton said her opponents were just trying to find anything “to throw against the wall and see what sticks” but insisted “there is no there, there.” Isn’t that cute, clever and cunning (two can play this game of three words in succession with the same first letter—there is no there, there)?

Okay, so there is no there, there. Glad we got that cleared up. Work for you? All better now? Just another false accusation on the part of her opponents (and now even some of her adoring media) explained away to your satisfaction? Green light again to support Hillary?

Let’s see, then. When emailgate first broke, Hillary swore (trust me, she said) she never, ever, ever, never, ever used her private email server to send or receive classified information. No way, she said, because, as Secretary of State, and the skilled lawyer that she is, she knew such transmissions would have been a violation of State Department regulations, if not federal law as well. Hey, why wouldn’t Hillary use this never, ever line? It worked beautifully for Taylor Swift. Taylor made millions with it: “We are never, ever, ever, never, ever getting back together—again.”

As with Taylor, the key to her hopeful admirers was the word “again.” Hillary swore she never, ever, but then subsequently had to apologize to her admirers for her “innocent mistake.” But just which innocent mistake was that?

The use of her private email server to send and receive classified information, at least 1,000 times (actually 999, but who’s counting?) so far, and more batches of emails still to be produced (repeat after me, 1,000 times, “that was just an innocent mistake”)


her innocent mistake not recalling she had done that, 1,000 times no less–until the subsequent court order to produce the emails forced her to “recall” her prior 1,000 “innocent mistakes?

Now, Hillary wants to say the document she was seeking in the email thread in question (above) contained no classified information and/or was never sent to her unclassified in any event notwithstanding her perfectly clear email instruction (above). So, the document didn’t transmit through her unclassified personal email server in the first place because it didn’t contain any classified information. Then why didn’t it transmit unclassified? And why did she need to send an email instructing her subordinate at the State Department (now working for her campaign) to game the system so it would transmit to her unsecured (in violation of State Department regulations), precisely as she now says didn’t happen in spite of her clear instruction to her subordinate? If it contained no classified information, why wasn’t it sent to her as she instructed?

And, are you comforted by Hillary’s statement that she didn’t receive the information, this from the same person who innocently “forgot” that she had sent and received at least 1,000 emails in violation of State Department regulations? Any chance that she might be innocently “forgetting” that she received this one too?

Whether the transmission was or was not sent is not really the question, as John Dickerson put it to Hillary on Face the Nation this past Sunday:

“What’s striking about that particular e-mail is it suggests you were very facile with how to do this, [to circumvent] this process. You knew the instructions about how to get around the restrictions for sending classified information. So you’re saying there was never an instance, any other instance in which you did this?”

Dickerson’s obvious point was what in the world was Hillary doing clearly trying to circumvent State Department regulations, if not federal law as well?

Her bumbling answer: Downplay; deflect; deny. “There is nothing there, there.” (Smile, laughter. Guess she thinks her sense of humor makes her more down to earth, a person of the people, trustworthy. (Watching the interview, I was waiting for her to bat her eyelashes, but she stopped short of that—might not have been politically correct to display and play on her feminine guile.)

If a best-selling political thriller novelist submitted a manuscript reading this way to his publishers, they’d turn it down as beyond belief. Unfortunately, sometimes reality is stranger than fiction!

Will anything come of this sordid business? Unless Hillary’s indicted over this (and why in the world would the Democratic administration be willing to do do that to their front runner?), I would guess this latest saga will have little, if any, impact on the 2016 Presidential campaign. The fact is there are just too many voters out there who don’t want to be bothered trying to understand servers and such. And what we all know is just another “fake” controversy unfairly aimed at Hillary because that’s what Hillary assures all of us. Downplay, deflect and deny. Those who were going to vote for her no doubt still will. But do you think they’d still buy a used car from her?

Join the discussion either by logging in just below or by signing into your favorite social media outlet. If you’re having trouble, please follow these instructions to guide you! Thanks!

  • Jose Sigal

    Dear Ronaldo, me again with the same thoughts as always and I’m sorry for repeating myself. What is the difference, King Obama, Queen Hillary? None of their wrongdoings will stick because the press is on their side, will cover for them, under report their misdeeds, etc. This is the same issue as your last blog.

    I was having lunch today with a dear friend of mine discussing this very issue and he was almost willing to bet me that Hillary was going to be elected. I told him that there was a better chance that Sandra Bullock was going to show up and have lunch with us and discuss this matter. We just laughed. Common sense and morality. When those are back something else might happen.

    • Hello you, again. 🙂 I enjoy hearing your thoughts and don’t at all find them tiring or repetitious. These matters are too important not to hear them as often as our voters will speak out.

      It certainly does seem that the press has covered for “King Obama.” But a funny thing MAY be happening in the POSSIBLE transition from “King Obama” to “Queen Hillary.” This latest email business really does suggest that Hillary believes she is “Queen Hillary,” unaccountable, all she has to do is just “downplay, deflect and deny,” and the press will do the same for her. But “Queen Hillary” has exceeded even “King Obama” and some of the press and some of the electorate may finally be growing weary of all this nonsense instead of common sense. An awful lot of the media, including CBS’ Face the Nation this past Sunday, has been extremely critical of this latest gaff on the part of “Queen Hillary.” And the polls suggest that Hillary may not be such a shoe in to win the Presidency, as opposed to the Democratic nomination.

      “Common sense and morality” and our U.S. politicians on both sides of the aisle are mutually exclusive. We are probably not going to see the return of common sense and morality to our political landscape until a 28th Constitutional Amendment like the one I present in my pending novel, 28: The Missing Amendment, is enacted for real. By the way, the amendment I drafted for the novel is available in full for inspection and downloading on my website. Go to the home page, click on the tab Resources up at the top, then click on the sub menu item Politics and scroll down until you come to the Amendment. You might find it interesting reading.

      And, by the way, when you get Sandra Bullock to join you for lunch, don’t forget to include this groupie. Maybe she’ll want to option the film rights to my solution. 🙂

  • Jane S Taber

    Bill Clinton says we must define the word IS.

    Obama says we must learn what IS and IS not Islam.

    Hillary says that there is no there there.

    Jane says what a bunch of crap.

    • Jane, you’re able to take it all in, but I can only absorb so much at any one time. Right now, I’m focusing on and trying to bring attention to Hillary’s “there’s no there, there.”

      But for me, the real issue is not the politicians. It’s the voters. If the voters ignore the obvious facts that there is already way too much there, there, then they deserve what they will certainly get, a whole lot more there, there.

      Where? There.